Delhi High Court
M/S Alka Automobiles & ... vs Union Of India on 17 March, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.264/1998
% 17th March, 2011
M/S ALKA AUTOMOBILES & ELECTRONICS SUPPLIERS
...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mahesh Kr. Chaudhary, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of the regular first appeal under Section
96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment
and decree dated 5.2.1998, whereby the suit for recovery of money of
the appellant/plaintiff for goods supplied was dismissed on account of
the same being time barred.
2. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for recovery of money on
RFA No.264/1998 Page 1 of 4
account of having supplied electronic items i.e., telephone sets,
accessories, cables etc. to the respondent no.1/Union of India/Northern
Railway. Admittedly, the last supply of the items is of the year 1990.
The suit was filed on 9.11.1994.
3. Before the trial court, and before this court, it was argued that
the suit was within limitation for two reasons:-
(i) The letter Ex.PW1/6 dated 24.5.1994 extends the limitation in
terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
(ii) The account between the parties was a running account.
4. So far as the issue that the letter Ex.PW1/6 dated 24.5.1994
extends the limitation, the trial court has given the following findings
and conclusions with respect to the same.
"8. The plaintiff depends on part payment made
after the supplies were made. Such part payment was
made vide Ex.PW1/6 which is a letter dated 24.5.94. To
examine the exact nature of the payment and whether such
payment could be termed as part payment to extend
limitation it is proper to read the letter. The relevant part
of the letter is as under:
"A cheque no.451717 dated 16.5.94 amounting to
Rs.11880/- is sent herewith through special
messenger as payment of Supply of the following
materials:
________________________________________________
Sl No. Item No. Qty. Cost Total amount
___________________________________________________________________
1. Thyrister 1 No. @Rs.1980/- Rs.1980.00
2. Cordless Telephone 1 No. @Rs.4950/- Rs.4950/80
3. Cordless Telephone 1 No. @ Rs.4950/- Rs.4950/80
Please acknowledge receipt of cheque."
RFA No.264/1998 Page 2 of 4
The ld. counsel for the plaintiff is obviously depending upon section
19 of the Limitation Act which is as under:
"Effect of payment on account of debt of interest on legacy:-
Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is
made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person
liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in
this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the
time when the payment was made.
Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made
before the 1st day of January, 1928 an acknowledgement of the
payment appears in the handwriting of or in a writing signed by the
person making the payment."
9. The question is whether the payment made by the defdt. can
be said to be payment on account of the entries dues of the pltff. as
detailed in the plaint. Clearly the defendant has made payment
against specific items namely Thyrister for Rs.1980/-and 2 cordless
telephone for Rs.4950/- each. This cannot be termed as part
payment or payment on account of the debt in the suit. The 3 items
against which the payments are made are mentioned in Ex.PW1/9 as
items supplied on 2.6.89, 28.6.89 and on 30.6.89. All the items find
mentioned in 2nd page of this exhibit. For these three items
payment having been made, the plaintiff's claim is satisfied.
However, it does not mean that by making payment for these 3
items the limitation of the plaintiff's claim in respect of other items
will also stand extended."
There is no illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings and
conclusions of the trial court in holding the suit to be barred by time
because the letter Ex.PW1/6 dated 24.5.1994 is with respect to specific
items for which payment was made. A specific payment against a
specific item cannot be used under Section 19 as an on account
payment of a general debt. To the extent payment is made for an
item, the debt with respect to that item gets paid, however, it cannot
mean that the said payment can be treated as payment under Section
19 for extending limitation.
RFA No.264/1998 Page 3 of 4
5. So far as the issue of the account being a running account is
concerned, the same is again without any basis because admittedly,
payments were made, not as on account payments, but specifically
with respect to each item/items supplied for which specific bills were
raised and specific payments were made.
6. This court is not entitled to interfere with the findings and
conclusions of the trial court merely because two views are possible
and the trial court has taken one plausible and possible view. This
court can interfere only if the findings and conclusions of the trial court
are illegal or perverse or the same causes injustice or grave prejudice.
I do not find that any of these ingredients exist to enable this court to
interfere in appeal. The appeal, therefore being devoid of merits is
dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial court record
be sent back.
CM No.1547/2011
Application is allowed. Names of Respondent No.s 2 to 6
are deleted from array of parties.
CM stands disposed of.
MARCH 17, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
